mnemosyne_memory_ingest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description and schema must carry the behavioral burden. The description states persistence is permanent, that content is indexed for semantic retrieval, and that any agent may later retrieve it. The vault parameter additionally warns that ingest is permanent and to confirm the vault exists before writing somewhere new. This meaningfully discloses consequences beyond what structured fields alone would convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two focused sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second gives direct usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and important behavioral qualifiers like 'permanently' and 'indexed' are front-loaded rather than buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, why to use it, and key consequences (permanence, indexing). It does not describe the return value or explicit success confirmation, which is a minor gap since no output schema is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; however, the schema's own parameter descriptions are rich, covering vault tokens, permanence, content self-containment, and spine_type semantics. The description's examples align with the enum values but add no new parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Persist a memory into the Mnemosyne OS vault,' and enumerates concrete content types (decision, architecture note, debug finding, session summary). This differentiates it from query/read siblings like mnemosyne_memory_query and mnemosyne_memory_ask, which retrieve rather than store.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: use at the end of a meaningful work session or whenever a decision reaches a point where future recall matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the clear write-vs-read contrast with the sibling tools makes the intended usage evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.